Re: ND NS/NA support required on point-to-point links?

sthaug@nethelp.no Wed, 14 July 2010 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49DF3A6A67 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 06:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TQ87TVAGMrme for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 061A53A6A64 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 06:25:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 81348 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2010 13:25:54 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 14 Jul 2010 13:25:54 -0000
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:25:54 +0200
Message-Id: <20100714.152554.41658861.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: pch-6man@u-1.phicoh.com
Subject: Re: ND NS/NA support required on point-to-point links?
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <m1OZ0OT-0001VGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
References: <m1OYznp-0001ehC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20100714.131624.74719628.sthaug@nethelp.no> <m1OZ0OT-0001VGC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, dthaler@microsoft.com
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:25:51 -0000

> >However, it would seem that several of the major vendors (e.g. Cisco,
> >Juniper) have interpreted this differently, and chosen not to perform
> >ND on point-to-point links.
> 
> Do you mean perform, as in issue the NS request or also in not responding
> to a NS request from the peer?

I have no idea whether an NS request would be answered on a point-to-point
link for these vendors. When I have tested this in the lab, the observed
behavior is that an NS request is never issued.

> So I wonder, with all the IPv6 interoperability testing and certification
> going on, how come nobody ever noticed that this is an issue?

The ping-pong behavior on IPv6 point-to-point links has most certainly been
noticed, see for instance

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00
    http://www.janog.gr.jp/meeting/janog22/program/day2/data/day2-1-e.pdf

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no